Most of us
have fallen victim to the law of unintended consequences, (such as the day you
stopped at a local farm to let your 5 year old daughter have a pony ride -
which led to her becoming a competitive rider and you spending every spring and
summer weekend at horse shows for the next decade.) That’s life and unintended
or not such consequences can be positive.

Yet in the
world of foreign policy makers, the unintended consequences which can follow
their decisions are almost always negative. For instance, the decision in the
1980s to supply arms to Islamic Mujahedeen fighters to resist the Soviet
occupation of Afghanistan
was quite successful. The Russians left – except that among the fighters was
Osama Bin Laden who founded al Qaeda out of like minded extremists, set up
terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a few years later attacked America
on 9/11.

But there
is another modern example of unintended consequences arguably even more
significant. Next month PBS is running a new three part documentary on the
Reagan presidency, written and directed by Chip Duncan. In the section dealing
with the Middle East, former Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz and former
George W. Bush Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice lament the unintended
consequences of Reagan’s policy in Lebanon. They say Reagan’s decision
to withdraw all U.S. troops
from Lebanon after 241
American servicemen were killed in the 1983 terrorist bombing attack on the
Marine barracks in Beirut,
created a power vacuum which had broad consequences we are still dealing with. To be specific:

Into that vacuum the Shiites of Lebanon
emerged as a major militant force under the banner of Hezbollah (the Party
of God.)

The then new Shiite theocracy of Iran and
its Revolutionary Guard became a permanent influence in Lebanese affairs.

Iran, Syria (ruled by the Alawite
sect which is a Shia off-shoot) and Hezbollah cemented what became a long
term alliance. A major goal of this new Shiite alliance has been to
challenge the previous dominance of Sunni Muslims, often using terrorist
tactics.

As for the
present, when the latest major changes in the region began two years ago with
the people’s revolutions of the Arab Spring, decisions were made by American
policy makers, with consequences we are just now beginning to see in Egypt,
Libya and Syria, which were neither obvious at the time nor intended.

The senior
Egyptian military commander said this past week that the new democratically
elected government may be on the verge of collapse if feuding civilian leaders
can not restore order in the country. He was speaking after more than sixty
people had been killed in anti government rioting. Residents of three Suez Canal cities put under a strict 9 PM curfew refused
to comply. Major confrontations elsewhere including in Cairo continued unabated. Protesters accuse
President Mohammed Morsi and his ruling Muslim Brotherhood Party of hijacking
the revolution and of the same violent tactics ousted President Hosni Mubarak
used to silence his opponents. No expert I have heard or read this past week
seems to know where all this is heading. But a military take over is clearly a
possibility.

This
inevitably raises questions. Was the Egyptian revolution such a good thing
after all? And from America’s
perspective, was President Barack Obama premature in supporting the revolution
and calling for Mubarak to step down? I agreed with Obama on the timing and
substance of his decisions and still do. I don’t believe America, as the
exemplar of democracy, had any other choice. And frankly I don’t think Obama’s
decision was a determining factor in Mubarak’s demise. But if Egypt is again taken over by generals, or if it
sinks into anarchy bitterly divided by religious differences, it will be argued
that in the interests of stability, America should not have so
cavalierly abandoned Mubarak.

Libya is a different matter. Obama’s
decision to get United Nations approval for an American led NATO and Arab
League military action to support anti Gaddafi rebels seemed like a good idea
at the time. But there is now clearly a power vacuum in Libya, which
Islamic extremists are exploiting. Also Gaddafi’s once bulging arsenals are now
the weapons being used by the latest Bin Laden franchise, al Qaeda in the
Maghreb, and by other groups inciting Islamic extremism in parts of North and Central Africa. Islamists established a significant
presence in Northern Mali, where the French,
with American logistical support are now challenging them. Similar radicals
were involved in the recent hostage taking at an oil refinery in Algeria where several dozen hostages including
three Americas
were killed.

Finally
there is Syria,
where some 60,000 people have been killed in the two years since unarmed
protesters began to call for the end of the Assad regime. President Obama has
resisted getting involved militarily or arming the rebels for the very reason
that such action might indeed have unintended consequences. It has become clear
that one of the most effective Syrian rebel groups is linked to al Qaeda. There
are chemical weapons that if Assad should fall, could certainly end up in the
wrong hands. That makes Israel
edgy enough to have already made air strikes on military targets within Syria. Right
now, no one can even define a possible, acceptable outcome to the Syrian
crisis.

When
President Reagan decided to send American troops into Lebanon in the
early 1980s, not only were the Lebanese fighting their own civil war.
Palestinian, Syrian, Iranian and Israeli forces were also in their country.
This was a recipe for the disaster that ultimately occurred. Unintended
consequences can not always be avoided - but serious and dispassionate analysis
before resorting to force can reduce their likelihood. Today there are
apparently new Islamic extremist threats to be reckoned with, but there is
always the danger of over stating such threats and over reaction. And as we
know from bitter experience- getting into wars is far easier than getting out
of them.